The Gauhati High Court has clarified that amending eligibility criteria for recruitment via an addendum—after an initial advertisement that did not start the application process—does not amount to “changing the rules of the game midway.” The judgment upholds existing Supreme Court precedent, affirms the primacy of the extant rules at the commencement of the application process, and serves as binding authority within Assam’s jurisdiction for challenges to government recruitment eligibility amendments.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/3870/2025 of ARIF MD YEAMIN CHOWDHURY AND 7 ORS. Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR |
| CNR | GAHC010131622025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Honourable the Chief Justice, Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Assam, persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents (K. Majusree, Tej Prakash Pathak) |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Service Law (Recruitment, Eligibility Criteria) |
| Questions of Law | Whether change in eligibility criteria for recruitment after initial advertisement but before commencement of the application process constitutes “changing the rules of the game midway” and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that if an initial advertisement for recruitment merely indicates forthcoming vacancies without specifying key eligibility details or application dates, and no application process starts, subsequent amendments to eligibility criteria (via addendum) issued after extant rules are amended and before receipt of applications do not amount to an impermissible “change of rules midway.” The process is considered to begin only when concrete eligibility, subject-wise vacancies, and application timelines are notified. The fixing of eligibility criteria remains a policy prerogative of the State, subject to rationality and Article 14 grounds. No arbitrariness was found in requiring specialized qualifications for Mathematics teachers. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents distinguishing between commencement of recruitment (advertisement with detailed eligibility criteria and application process) and mere notifications about future vacancies. Also cited public policy justifications and the discretion of the government to set rational eligibility requirements. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The State of Assam initially issued an advertisement in December 2023 for Arts and Science teachers, without subject-specific eligibility or application details. Before applications could be invited, the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018 were amended in August 2024, introducing the requirement for a degree/honours in Mathematics for Mathematics teacher posts. An addendum in October 2024 specified these updated criteria and application details. Petitioners challenged the amendment as a post-hoc change of rules. The Court dismissed the plea, upholding the amendment’s validity since the application process had not commenced at the time of the addendum. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and administrative authorities in Assam |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (as reasoning is rooted in affirmed SC precedents) |
| Overrules | None specified; does not overrule any specific prior High Court/Supreme Court judgment |
| Distinguishes | Distinguishes cases where recruitment process (application reception) had already commenced at the time of the rule change |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that finalization of subject-wise eligibility and opening of application process (not initial vacancy notification) marks the commencement of the recruitment process.
- Key distinction: Amendment to eligibility criteria before the start of receiving applications is valid and does not amount to “changing rules midway.”
- The government’s prerogative to amend eligibility criteria (subject to rationality and Article 14) stands reaffirmed.
- Initial advertisements not containing precise eligibility criteria or deadlines do not vest a right in potential applicants under the pre-amendment rules.
- Lawyers challenging eligibility criteria amendments must closely analyze whether the recruitment process (acceptance of applications) had actually commenced prior to the amendment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined Supreme Court holdings in K. Majusree and Tej Prakash Pathak, which establish that changing eligibility criteria after commencement of recruitment is generally impermissible unless the existing framework or advertisement so allows.
- It analyzed the factual sequence: the first advertisement was preliminary, lacking subject-wise details or avenues to submit applications; only the addendum—issued after the rule amendment—instituted the actual application process.
- The amendment to the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018, introduced specialized qualification requirements for Mathematics teachers, motivated by the aim of improving educational standards.
- The Court found the government entitled to fix such criteria, provided they are not arbitrary and meet Article 14 standards.
- The recruitment process, for the purposes of the “changing rules midway” doctrine, is only considered to have begun when applications are invited on definitive criteria.
- No arbitrariness or illegality was detected in the process by which the amendment and subsequent addendum were issued.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The initial advertisement did not stipulate a specialized degree requirement for Mathematics subjects.
- Amending eligibility—and issuing an addendum requiring specific subject qualifications—after the initial advertisement amounted to “changing the rules of the game midway.”
- Supreme Court precedents (K. Majusree, Tej Prakash Pathak) prohibit such post-advertisement changes after commencement of the recruitment process.
Respondent (State)
- The initial advertisement was only an intimation without specifying subject-wise vacancies or eligibility or inviting applications.
- The application process had not begun; thus, amending eligibility criteria before the start of application acceptance is valid.
- The eligibility change was rational and intended to enhance educational standards.
- Applications were first invited only after the new eligibility requirements were specified post-amendment.
Factual Background
The State of Assam advertised vacancies for teachers in Arts and Science streams in December 2023, without specifying subject-wise details or eligibility criteria for Mathematics teachers. The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018 were amended in August 2024 to require specialized Mathematics qualifications for Mathematics teacher posts. Subsequently, an addendum issued in October 2024 provided complete details, including the new eligibility criteria and the timeline for applications. Petitioners, ineligible under the new rules, challenged the change as an impermissible alteration of recruitment terms after advertisement.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court considered the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018, as amended by the 2024 notification under Article 309 of the Constitution.
- It discussed the timing and effect of amendments under Article 309 for recruitment processes.
- The interpretation makes a clear distinction between a preliminary advertisement and the official commencement of the recruitment process with subject-wise criteria and application deadlines.
- Article 14 (protection against arbitrary State action) was applied to assess the rationality and fairness of the amended eligibility criteria.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded. All judges concurred in dismissing the petitions and upholding the amendment and addendum.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations, guidelines, or directions were issued in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Follows established Supreme Court law (K. Majusree, Tej Prakash Pathak) on non-alteration of recruitment eligibility, but clarifies the point at which the “rules of the game” doctrine applies.